Description:If “interdisciplinary” connotes anything, it should be improved communication across disciplines that fosters mutual understanding. This, in turn, advances our understanding of the deeply complex ethical and moral issues facing our world today. Acknowledging the need for diversity and integrity in speaking to these issues, Soundings promotes dialogue, reflection, inquiry, discussion, and action. These activities are informed by scholarship and by the acknowledgment of the civil and social responsibilities of academe to engage the world beyond the ivory tower.

The "moving wall" represents the time period between the last issue
available in JSTOR and the most recently published issue of a journal.
Moving walls are generally represented in years. In rare instances, a
publisher has elected to have a "zero" moving wall, so their current
issues are available in JSTOR shortly after publication.
Note: In calculating the moving wall, the current year is not counted.
For example, if the current year is 2008 and a journal has a 5 year
moving wall, articles from the year 2002 are available.

Terms Related to the Moving Wall

Fixed walls: Journals with no new volumes being added to the archive.

Absorbed: Journals that are combined with another title.

Complete: Journals that are no longer published or that have been
combined with another title.

Abstract

Two of the most significant threats to democratic governance at the national level are, first, the gerrymandering of congressional districts, which has tempted primary candidates in increasingly “safe” districts to present themselves as extremists unwilling to compromise, and, second, the Supreme Court decisions (Citizens United v. FEC and McCutcheon v. FEC) that have effectively opened the electoral process to virtually unlimited campaign contributions from increasingly anonymous, and therefore unaccountable, donors and behind-the-scenes political actors. This article examines the particulars of the recent McCutcheon decision and uses a recent book by retired U.S. Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens to explore the possibility of constitutional reform aimed against these developments.